This invention relates generally to an improved ophthalmic fitting set and in particular to a new and novel device for use also by an optometrist or the like to insure a proper fit for each individual patient.
The usual procedure for the selection and fitting of eyeglasses by an optometrist generally involves a two-step process wherein in the first step the user's eyes are checked by the optometrist or the like to ascertain the precise degree of correction required in the lens of the eyeglass. After this has been determined the patient is generally escorted to a separate sitting room where a large selection of styles and colors of eyeglass frames are shown to him. After a long series of trial and error fittings of the various styles and colors of glasses on the user, the final selection is generally made by the patient and his particular set of glasses are then tailor-made by the optometrist by grinding the prescription formula for the lens and inserting the proper lens in the selected frame.
Such fitting techniques, while many times successful, are not necessarily always successful since standard frames heretofore known generally comprise one of two types which are not necessarily satisfactory for all users. Such frames generally utilize molded nosepieces made of plastic and having relatively small contact area with the nosepiece being fixed to the eyeglass frame so that no adjustment front-to-rear is possible to take into account different size and shaped noses. The other type of common nosepiece used with frames generally sold today consists of a type of floating nosepiece which may be formed of a metal face or sometimes a plastic face.
It should be recognized that these types of nosepiece mounts are often considered uncomfortable and can cause pressure indentations in the skin of the nose which can be unsightly and irritating after a prolonged use of the poorly fit eyeglass. An ill-fitted pair of eyeglasses such as this often causes a second problem to the user which is the problem of slippage of glasses on the user's nose which can be very annoying to say the least. It is felt that such slippage occurs because of the poor frictional fit on the nose of the user resulting primarily from the ill-fitted nosepieces on the eyeglass.
For a more fuller understanding of the prior art type of nosepieces available for eyeglasses, reference should be made to the following U.S. patents which all generally teach what has been before described as the fixed type of nosepiece: U.S. Pat. No. 115,302, issued to E. M. Splaine, June 20, 1939; U.S. Pat. No. 129,710, issued to H. J. Langknecht, Sept. 30, 1941; U.S. Pat. No. 200,667, issued to V. A. Downie et al, Mar. 23, 1965; U.S. Pat. No. 3,345,121, issued to A. De Angelis, Oct. 3, 1967; U.S. Pat. No. 3,391,976, issued to F. W. Lindblom, July 9, 1968; U.S. Pat. No. 2,612,076, issued to W. Dietz, Sept. 30, 1952; U.S. Pat. No. 3,189,913, issued to G. R. Hoffmaster, June 15, 1965; U.S. Pat. No. 3,701,592, issued to J. J. Fernandez, Oct. 31, 1972; U.S. Pat. No. 3,758,203, issued to H. Lipchik et al, Sept. 11, 1973; U.S. Pat. No. 3,365,263, issued to D. P. Allen, Jan. 23, 1968; U.S. Pat. No. 2,148,397, issued to F. Bock, Feb. 21, 1939; U.S. Pat. No. 2,006,917, issued to C. J. Haag, July 2, 1935; U.S. Pat. No. 2,345,065, issued to G. E. Nerney, Mar. 28, 1944; and U.S. Pat. No. 2,354,603, issued to R. Malcom, July 25, 1944.
These patents, while not considered especially pertinent to the subject application, are cited for the purpose of showing the extensive state of art and the extensive need for improvement in nosepiece designs.
Eyeglass nosepieces of the floating type are typified by the following U.S. patents which are considered more pertinent to the applicant's invention inasmuch as they overcome the problems inherent in the fixed type of nosepiece but are not necessarily an improvement over the applicant's new and novel invention: U.S. Pat. No. 3,476,468, issued to J. A. Fortenberry, Nov. 4, 1969; U.S. Pat. No. 3,515,467, issued to D. A. Stewart, June 2, 1970; U.S. Pat. No. 2,640,391, issued to E. H. Moseley, June 2, 1953; U.S. Pat. No. 3,233,956, issued to A. De Angelis, Feb. 8, 1966; and U.S. Pat. No. 3,233,250, issued to S. Jonassen, Feb. 8, 1966.
In addition to the before cited reference patents by the applicant, the examiner cited the following patents in the before mentioned Bradley application Ser. No. 525,842:
______________________________________ E. B. Meyrowitz U.S. 329,474 Issued 11/03/1885 W. H. Eccleston et al U.S. 375,541 Issued 12/27/1887 J. A. Fortenberry U.S. 3,476,468 Issued 11/04/1969 Boucle France 1,245,938 Issued 10/03/1960 A. S. Weaver U.S. 636,595 Issued 11/07/1899 ______________________________________
The examiner also cited the following patents in the before mentioned Bradley application Ser. No. 573,907:
______________________________________ J. A. Fortenberry U.S. 3,476,468 Issued 11/04/1969 A. S. Weaver U.S. 636,595 Issued 11/07/1899 G. H. Emerson U.S. 388,545 Issued 8/28/1888 ______________________________________